Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Dec 15:11:614194.
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.614194. eCollection 2020.

Biocontrol Traits Correlate With Resistance to Predation by Protists in Soil Pseudomonads

Affiliations

Biocontrol Traits Correlate With Resistance to Predation by Protists in Soil Pseudomonads

Nathalie Amacker et al. Front Microbiol. .

Abstract

Root-colonizing bacteria can support plant growth and help fend off pathogens. It is clear that such bacteria benefit from plant-derived carbon, but it remains ambiguous why they invest in plant-beneficial traits. We suggest that selection via protist predation contributes to recruitment of plant-beneficial traits in rhizosphere bacteria. To this end, we examined the extent to which bacterial traits associated with pathogen inhibition coincide with resistance to protist predation. We investigated the resistance to predation of a collection of Pseudomonas spp. against a range of representative soil protists covering three eukaryotic supergroups. We then examined whether patterns of resistance to predation could be explained by functional traits related to plant growth promotion, disease suppression and root colonization success. We observed a strong correlation between resistance to predation and phytopathogen inhibition. In addition, our analysis highlighted an important contribution of lytic enzymes and motility traits to resist predation by protists. We conclude that the widespread occurrence of plant-protective traits in the rhizosphere microbiome may be driven by the evolutionary pressure for resistance against predation by protists. Protists may therefore act as microbiome regulators promoting native bacteria involved in plant protection against diseases.

Keywords: PGPR; biocontrol; multitrophic interactions; protozoa; rhizobacteria.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Active protist densities grown on different bacterial isolates (No added cells, E. coli OP50, and Pseudomonas spp.) at day 3, in 2% KB, shown for all protists together. Asterisks indicate significant differences compared to the control (protist grown on the E. coli OP50) reported from the binomial regression part of the hurdle model (see also Supplementary Table S5).
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Active protist densities grown on each bacterial strain at day 3, in 2% KB, shown for individual predator-prey co-cultures. The different colors of the heatmap represent the normalized protist density on each bacterial isolate. White (corresponding to a value of 0) indicates the average density per protist isolate (per row). Orange indicates lower density compared to the average of a protist isolate and blue indicates higher density compared to the average of a protist isolate. Asterisks indicate level of significance in protist density grown on the given bacterial isolate relative to growth with E. coli OP50. The protist isolate and bacterial isolates are displayed based on their phylogenetic relatedness. Phylogenetic trees are based on the Maximum-Likelihood Method using the concatenated partial sequences from 16S rRNA, rpoB, and oprF genes for the pseudomonads and the 18S rRNA gene for the protist isolates.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Bacterial density (OD600) plotted against protist density at day 3, in 2% KB. Each point represents the mean of 5 replicates.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Correlation matrix between protist growth and selected prey bacterial traits. Red and blue dots indicate negative and positive correlations, respectively. Dashed circles are statistically significant. The different bacterial traits are grouped together according to the indexes: BPI, Biocontrol Potential Index; DGPI, Direct Plant Growth Promotion; CPI, Colonization Potential Index.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Spearman rank correlation between the combined protist density and the combined bacterial density with the different bacterial indices calculated by Agaras et al. (2015). Red and blue dots indicate negative and positive correlations, respectively. Dashed circles are statistically significant. Biocontrol Potential Index (BPI; e.g., antibiotic genes, HCN production, lytic enzymes), Direct Growth Promotion Index (DGPI; e.g., P solubilization, IAA, ACC deaminase), and Colonization Potential Index (CPI; motility, quorum sensing, biofilm).

References

    1. Adl S. M., Bass D., Lane C. E., Lukeš J., Schoch C. L., Smirnov A., et al. (2018). Revisions to the classification, nomenclature, and diversity of eukaryotes. J. Eukaryotic Microbiol. 66 4–119. 10.1111/jeu.12691 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Agaras B. C., Iriarte A., Valverde C. F. (2018). Genomic insights into the broad antifungal activity, plant-probiotic properties, and their regulation, in Pseudomonas donghuensis strain SVBP6. PLoS One 13:e0194088. 10.1371/journal.pone.0194088 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Agaras B. C., Noguera F., Anta G. G., Wall L., Valverde C. (2020). Biocontrol potential index of pseudomonads, instead of their direct-growth promotion traits, is a predictor of seed inoculation effect on crop productivity under field conditions. Biol. Control 143:104209 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2020.104209 - DOI
    1. Agaras B. C., Scandiani M., Luque A., Fernández L., Farina F., Carmona M., et al. (2015). Quantification of the potential biocontrol and direct plant growth promotion abilities based on multiple biological traits distinguish different groups of Pseudomonas Spp. Isolates. Biol. Control 90 173–186. 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2015.07.003 - DOI
    1. Andersen K. S., Winding A. (2004). Non-target effects of bacterial biological control agents on soil protozoa. Biol. Fertil. Soils 40 230–236. 10.1007/s00374-004-0774-y - DOI